Looking back on the year 2015, I think that this image fits it pretty well:
Let’s try harder next year.
An image to describe 2015
1 Reply
Category Archives: Regressive Leftism
Militia Member Calls TYT Out On Their Disingenuousness
Many of you are probably aware that there is a YouTube channel by the name of The Young Turks (TYT for short). My first problem with them (besides that they named themselves for the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide and are Armenian Genocide deniers) is that they are so far left wing that they fall off the side of the plane.
Their YouTube channel has been quite popular, which isn’t surprising considering that there are plenty of angsty 15-year-olds out there to pander to who are naive as to how the world works. Me, I’ve ignored them for a while. However, one of their videos caught my attention. It’s titled, “Read The WHOLE Second Amendment” (please be sure that you have AdBlock Plus on before clicking that link). In it, the host invites viewers to read the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights.
I’m for Americans reading the entirety of the U.S. Bill of Rights. In fact, here is a link to do so. It’s not that long. It would only take a few minutes to read.
The host’s argument is that gun rights advocates only read the second part of the Second Amendment, which, when read in its entirety, is as follows:
Article the fourth… A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The host makes the case that the right to bear arms only applies to members of the militia, and not to citizens in general, and states that the modern-day equivalent of the militia is the police force, ignoring that there is such a thing as a preface separated by a comma that does not modify the intent of the message.
Like any liberal or otherwise far-left position, the host’s case is an appeal to ignorance. I’ll tell you why: According to the U.S. Code, I’m considered a member of the militia. In fact, you might be too. I left the following in the comment section explaining why:
I made a copy of my comment to share here due to a tendency of liberal fringe groups to eschew protected free expression and instead delete anything they can they don’t agree with (for more information on this, look up “censorship”). That liberal fringe groups engage in censorship in what is supposed to be a free and open marketplace of ideas (the internet) tells you what you need to know about them. History tells us that if censoring all other viewpoints is what’s necessary for a political ideology to thrive, it’s usually because the ideology in question can’t actually withstand intellectual challenge.
The host reads the entirety of the Second Amendment, which isn’t a bad thing, but then he proceeds to engage in word games as to what defines a militia. Whether or not he’s aware of it, the U.S. Code, which is the permanent law of the Federal Government of the United States, clearly states that all males, ages 17 to 45, who are ordinary citizens of the United States, are considered members of the militia.
Here is how it reads:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So, how about that? The host makes the case that the right to bear arms only applies to militia members, when American law defines ordinary citizens as militia members! The host made a pretty self-defeating case, didn’t he? What’s more, the law extends to those who so much as state the intention to become a United States citizen!
This means that the permanent law of the United States, according to U.S. Code, protects someone’s right to bear arms from the moment they state the intention of becoming a U.S. citizen forward!
There are those who would probably think that this is just some quaint relic of a law from the colonial period, perhaps a practical idea at some point, but impractical in today’s modern era. There is a problem with such an assertion: the law was last edited in the 1950s. This means that this law was intended for modern application.
One more liberal argument refuted. Not that that means that we’ll hear the last of it. Liberals and left-wing fringe groups love to prey on ignorance, so they’ll likely try to peddle the argument that TYT made, or some modification thereof.
Still, something about their argument is pretty chilling: the insistence that only police own guns. Are liberals even aware that they are working to create an environment in which dissent can be easily suppressed by force by a powerful federal agency? If such a thing were to come about, it would likely last well beyond the popularity of the liberal ideology in its current state, and come to be employed by an opposing political ideology that would have an equal or greater intolerance for dissent. That’s the kind of thing that the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights was written with the intention of preventing.
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason
Feminist slander campaign backfires, perpetrator loses job
When you voice your opinion on the internet, there is a possibility that someone is going to issue disagreement with you. That’s a possibility to prepare for in just about any marketplace of ideas. However, not everyone has that kind of maturity.
Recently, a YouTuber with the handle Thunderf00t expressed criticism of Anita Sarkeesian’s methods as a radical feminist. In response, fans of Anita Sarkeesian have (issued polite disagreement? No, they) threatened him.
One in particular by the handle of Laughing Witch took things a little further. She decided that the best way to handle his criticism was to invent a lie against him, and then attempt to ruin his life by telling that lie to his local newspaper, his local police department, and even to his own employer in an attempt to get him fired.
I’ve expressed before that modern feminism has serious honesty problems. However, this case takes things to a whole other level. I’ve disagreed with people on the internet before (I might even disagree with a few things Thunderf00t has said). But to this day, I haven’t decided that the best way to handle such a thing is to try to attack their job. Yet, Laughing Witch has found someone who has disagreed with the methods of radical feminism, and made up a lie about him being a Nazi and a hater of Muslims. He has also been accused of being a member of a conservative group, but that’s not an insult. Again, the lie was propagated to his local paper, his local police department, and his own employer in an attempt to destroy his livelihood and his standing in the community.
If you’re interested in a legal reason why this is a bad idea, look up the word “libel”.
Obviously, these claims aren’t even consistent. For one thing, Nazis historically didn’t hate Muslims. In fact, even Hitler expressed admiration of them. Also, the term “Nazi” is short for “National Socialist”. Conservatives are not socialists.
Of course, things like “facts” haven’t been known to make much of a difference to radical feminists. Not only did Laughing Witch slander Thunderf00t with these claims, she actually bragged about her actions on YouTube using her real name. That’s some kind of confidence.
Afterwards, radical feminists on YouTube celebrated getting Thunderf00t fired. This is in spite of the fact that Thunderf00t was not fired. This tells us what we need to know about radical feminism, it really doesn’t matter to them what’s true.
Laughing Witch bragged that she was immune to backlash because she was the vice president of the company that employed her, which was headed by her husband. She even expressed that she was pleased with her sudden influx of subscribers, probably not realizing how many of those subscribers were just interested in watching a ship sink fast.
As it turns out, the ship sank faster than expected. Laughing Witch was actually fired from her job as Vice President of the company that employed her. Meaning, yes, this overconfident radical feminist was actually fired by her own husband. What’s more, she also removed her own YouTube channel (possibly at the request of her husband, who likely saw her online activities as being a serious liability for his company).
There are few things that I dislike more than slander. Because of this, it brightened my day to see that someone who attempted it fell into her own snare.
We probably haven’t heard the last of Laughing Witch. Persons such as herself usually love attention. She might appear again later with a new handle or with a Patreon account begging for donations, claiming to be the victim for all the problems that she brought upon herself.
Still, that someone would consider doing what she tried to do is pretty alarming. I think it’s a sign that radical feminism is quickly becoming more maladjusted, especially with someone like Anita Sarkeesian for them to get behind. Her fanbase has already demonstrated itself to be one of the most dangerous fanbases among YouTube personalities.
Are liberals secretly inept at tech?
The first batch of Hillary Clinton emails since the Benghazi testimony have been released, and one of the things they tell us about Hillary is her choice of cell phones. It seems Hillary is a Blackberry user.
I admit that my cell phone of choice was a Blackberry at one point. It was a Blackberry Torch, which I liked because it provided a combination of touchscreen and keyboard interfaces. It was an okay phone. However, the Blackberry brand is well past it’s prime. Perhaps the most significant reason that the Blackberry brand has as many users as it does is because it’s historically been favored in the business world. It was a pioneer at one point, and may have even been favored for some reasons. Today, the Blackberry brand doesn’t have the same kind of relevance that it used to.
It’s tempting to pick on Hillary because of her favoritism toward the Blackberry brand, but Blackberry phones are sometimes standard issue among large corporations (I suspect that they’re a means of keeping the staff on a leash; if the company gives the employee a phone, it can enable the company to contact the employee at any time). What I found interesting is that after spending time with a newer Blackberry, Hillary went back to an older Blackberry for it’s familiarity. It’s interesting enough that, instead of adapting to something new, she went back to an older phone for it’s familiarity. But on top of that, after going back to her old phone, she found herself missing the emoticons from the newer phone.
Hillary Clinton is one of the most serious-looking women I’ve ever seen, so it’s hard to imagine that she’d have a strong attachment to emoticons. She even asked whether there was a way to add them to her older phone.
What we’re seeing so far is actually far different from the image of the privileged coastal technocrat that liberals largely picture themselves as (some also view themselves as an oppressed minority that is part of an underground movement, and they see very little problem with being both). What we’re seeing is someone who, instead of adapting to something cutting-edge, instead went back to something older for comfort. And what’s more, she likes smilies. If she were to later come out saying that she plays Candy Crush Saga, that would lend to the idea that information like this was being fed to the public to make Hillary seem more relatable.
She also asked “How does this work” about a request to “connect” on the website LinkedIn.
Say what?
LinkedIn has over 300 million users. Each of these users likely figured out how to create an account without asking for someone else’s help. If she was really asking for help on how to connect on LinkedIn, perhaps she didn’t make her Facebook and Twitter accounts by herself.
To put this into perspective, the guy behind Time Cube was able to make his own website.
What’s more, Hillary asked one of her aides what her New York Times password is.
I get the idea that Hillary Clinton isn’t that good with tech. It seems like ineptitude with tech has increasingly become a liability for those of liberal persuasion. One example would be Lois Lerner, who played a part in a conspiracy to target conservative groups because that’s one way that a fascist can abuse power. When she was subpoenaed for her emails, it conveniently turned out that they were deleted. It’s pretty obvious that she or her cronies deleted her emails because there were things in them that could have gotten her in trouble. However, the emails were recoverable. It turns out that a supposedly-sophisticated organization like the IRS didn’t do a good job at covering its tracks.
Then there’s the scandal involving Anthony Weiner, who attempted to send a woman a picture of his genitals, but posted it to Twitter instead. I can picture a person mistakenly sending the wrong person a text message, but how does a person try to send a private message but accidentally make it public instead?!
Considering cases like these, I get the idea that liberals actually aren’t as tech savvy as they would like you to believe. Of course, the bigger problem for liberalism would be its ideology, and that they provide just the right environment for fringe groups such as radical vegetarians and feminists (the latter of which has been becoming increasingly fanatical).
Liberalism is like a high-IQ club that’s free to join with no IQ test required, and everyone involved high-fives one another for having the same opinion. Of course, if they don’t come to the right conclusions, they haven’t actually been using their heads right, and that wouldn’t change just because they know how to use smartphones (which have been made so that they’d be simple to use for just about anyone).
Fat shaming and Nicole Arbour
A recent video by Nicole Arbour on YouTube caused quite a stir for it’s topic of fat shaming. In it, the host, Nicole Arbour, called out fat people for the claims that they make about themselves and pointed out that they have a problem. As you could probably imagine, the video got a lot of criticism. So much in fact, that the video was taken down for a short while before being placed back up and comments on the video have been disabled.
While her video did have it’s problems (such as that the host was mildly annoying), on her point that there is a problem with body fat in America, she mostly nailed it. America does have a problem with body fat.
So, why is Nicole Arbour so heavily criticized for her position? Because people don’t like admitting that they have problems that are their own fault. Yeah, there are some cases where people are fat because they have legitimate disabilities that affect their growth, and there are other causes that people can hardly help. However, cases like those are rare. In the case of nearly all Americans that are overweight, they got that way because they weren’t exercising very good self-control. We live in one of the few cultures in history that has an abundance of food, and people still treat it as though it might not still be there the next day.
In fact, in America, our own police forces have a problem with overweight officers. Considering that people count on them to protect them, that’s a scary thought. A physically fit perpetrator could easily outrun them. There are also security guards, though they’re not the same thing (if that’s the kind of thing you want to do with your life, that’s your choice).
People generally don’t like having it pointed out to them that their bad state is a product of their own choices, and is therefore their own fault. Because of this, people tend toward those who tell them what they like to hear, regardless of what’s good for them. This enables them to write off as “mean people” those who are pointing out what’s wrong.
A person who tells it like it is doesn’t always have to resort to satire. However, sometimes it takes a little more than gentle pleading to get people to change for the better. Most people seem to be familiar with only one kind of encouragement. I think it would be plenty motivating to take care of myself if it meant not becoming misshapen and disfigured, and if it also meant that I could avoid being made fun of for my weight, that’s also a plus. Potential suitors do pay attention to physical characteristics, and some of them can indicate lifestyle choices which are not ideal.
As a person who has been both skinny and borderline overweight, I can tell you that it’s a lot more fun to be skinny. I enjoy having that energy and sound health. There’s also the perk of being attractive. That might take some effort to maintain (perhaps more so for some than others), but it’s worth it.
If a person is overweight, what can they do about it? They could make the choice to take better care of themselves. However, it seems easier for many of them to write off people like Nicole Arbour as those who don’t know what they’re talking about as their paunch steadily grows and sags.
Animal abusers swiftly punished (but harvesters of human organs still run free)
In the comments sections discussing the controversial videos that expose Planned Parenthood’s illegal selling of fetal organs, I remember reading about how the media is sparsely reporting the story and the political left is looking the other way, but if there were a video showing animal abuse, there would be immediate consequences.
As it so happens, a videotape by a group called Mercy for Animals has exposed blatant animal abuse at the hands of a farm in Tennessee. Immediately afterwards, Tyson Foods, who in turn supplies chicken to McDonald’s, terminated it’s contract with the farm.
So, there you go. Animals are abused, it’s caught on one video, and it gets immediate media coverage, and action is taken against the perpetrators immediately. However, when it’s human lives that are harvested for organs, and there are a number of videos, some of them hours long, showing evidence of the crimes that have been going on for years, it’s treated with a media blackout, and president Obama voices his support for the perpetrators without having watched any of the video evidence.
There seems to be a disease that is damaging American minds. The double-standard that the media is showing favoring livestock grown for food over their own human specie is just one symptom of it. There have also been more mass shootings in recent times. What this shows is an increasingly callous disregard for human lives.
One would-be incident was the possibly averted shooting that would have taken place at the Pokemon World Championships. There is a possibility that the two would-be gunmen were only joking. Even so, it’s become an occasion for some to use the incident to further their own agenda. There are a lot of people out there that have a problem with video games, and want to impose more futile regulations on them. And, of course, there are those who are out to take guns away from everybody.
Both guns and video games have been around for a long time, but mass shootings are a very recent epidemic. Even if you were to pad every wall and take all the sharp objects away from everybody, if the infirmity of mind that leads to mass killings remains untreated, they’re just going to keep happening.
The blatant disregard for human life is a growing epidemic in America, and the harvesting of human organs by Planned Parenthood is yet another symptom of it. As disgusting as this is, it’s even worse yet when you realize that the president of the United States himself is enabling it. If that’s where things are now, where do they go next?
Planned Parenthood might sue. Could this backfire?
Let’s start this off by sharing a video that Planned Parenthood and the American political left does not want you to see. The following is the latest upload by the Center for Medical Progress:
The latest video is the most incriminating yet. In it, a former member of Planned Parenthood explains how babies were extracted alive then had their organs harvested, including a brain which was obtained from the living infant by slicing it’s face open.
Pretty disturbing stuff, right? And yes, it’s illegal. If the infant is extracted alive, killing it is a homicide.
So then, what does Planned Parenthood have to say about this? They’re thinking of suing.
Planned Parenthood is considering legal action against the Center for Medical Progress, the group that exposed their baby-part-selling operations.
Yes, Planned Parenthood, who themselves have been selling baby parts in violation of Federal law, which is a felony, no less, is considering taking legal action against the group that exposed them for doing so, saying that it was illegal to spy on them in such a manner. In the United States of America, whose government has spied on it’s citizens.
This isn’t Bizarro World here. People who have been committing Federal felonies for years are considering suing the people who exposed them. Again, in America.
Planned Parenthood is considering this course of action, as opposed to not bringing much attention to themselves, because if they did, they might end up jailed for the crimes that there is video evidence of them having committed. I can imagine that ending up in Federal prison might ruin their day, as it probably would for most people. Considering this, wouldn’t they want to keep a low profile, to avoid bringing attention to themselves?
Republicans have been calling for defunding Planned Parenthood. Is that it? While it’s true that Planned Parenthood should be defunded (they should not have been receiving Federal funding to begin with), this shouldn’t stop there. Leadership of Planned Parenthood should be arrested. They broke the law. Why aren’t they being arrested?
The Executive Vice President of Planned Parenthood, Dawn Laguens, demanded that the Center for Medical Progress submit “all of the videos and the source footage unedited, and they would hand it to Congress and law enforcement” as opposed to “splice it together in all sorts of crazy ways in order to tell a political story.”
Here’s the thing: if Dawn Laguens wants the full, unedited versions of these videos so badly, she can get them the same way everyone else has been getting them: by going to the Center for Medical Progress’ YouTube channel. They have been posting unedited versions of their videos in their entirety.
Didn’t she know that they were up there? Yes, there are edited versions about ten minutes long that get to the point. There are also corresponding FULL FOOTAGE videos, which happen to be far more incriminating than the edited versions. There goes the argument that CMP has only been uploading the most scandalous and heavily-butchered parts without sharing the rest of the conversations.
Also, I’m for Congress and law enforcement seeing these videos. I wouldn’t mind if every member of Congress saw these videos. However, I get the impression that Dawn Laguens doesn’t know how YouTube or the internet works. Turning these videos in to Congress doesn’t remove them from the internet. They’d still be on YouTube’s servers, probably on multiple servers to accommodate the high volume of traffic that these videos are getting. It’s likely that many people, anticipating efforts to silence the CMP, have downloaded the videos for themselves and might host them on their own web space or share them with a peer-to-peer service such as μTorrent. Once a file is on the internet, the expectation is that it will be copied many times and be around for a very long time, especially when the material gets significant media attention.
Another thing I find odd is that Planned Parenthood really seems to think that the American public is siding with them on this matter. That’s not the case. One thing that the comment sections of these videos show is that the people who have seen them are pissed. Big time. And as more people see these videos, there will be more people who will want to see Planned Parenthood’s leadership incarcerated, and the organization’s doors shut permanently.
Because of that, one would think that Planned Parenthood wouldn’t want to bring much attention to themselves right now.
Free bleeding: The new thing in feminist insanity (grossness warning)
Feminists have been hard at work to appear as immature as possible, and some of them have found an irresponsible new way of doing so, and it’s called “free bleeding”.
If you’re afraid that that means that feminists are now experiencing their periods without the use of tampons and pads, I have bad news for you: that’s just what it is.
This became a thing just after Kiran Gandhi ran the London Marathon without using a tampon. She was going through her period, and she reasoned that it would be far more comfortable to run the marathon without a feminine hygiene product, though she also said (likely as a pretext) that she did it to raise awareness of women that don’t have access to feminine hygiene products.
So, she bled a gross black mark right into the pants she was wearing. And feminists enjoyed it, adopting free bleeding in an effort to overcome oppression and erase the stigma associated with menstruation.
What oppression would that be? If it’s oppression to use a maxi pad, would it also be oppression to shower and brush one’s own teeth?
Believe it or not, there’s no stigma associated with menstruation, and it’s not oppression when there’s an expectation that someone exercise hygienic practices associated with it. Menstruation is a natural part of a woman’s life. It’s not unfair in any way that women experience such a thing, nor is the expectation that she manages it in a safe and hygienic manner. Not managing one’s period safely creates a biological hazard, and it leaves people with an impression that the person is irresponsible. And psychotic. If menstruation is gross, it’s gross because it’s not being properly handled.
If a person doesn’t have maxi pads or tampons, does that really mean that they have no solution to managing their period? Maxi pads and tampons are relatively recent inventions. Women have been finding numerous solutions throughout history. Why have they been doing this? Probably because they want to avoid ruining their socks, shoes, and other clothing, and maybe also because there would be something unpleasant with having one’s genitals be bloody and infected.
I know that there are people out there that would prefer for men and women to be the same. They’re not getting what they want because there will always be physiological differences between men and women, and therefore differences in medical treatment and routine maintenance regarding these differences. You play the cards you’re dealt. Before someone mentions it, I’ll point out that going transgender can only take a person so far. The most science can do to change a person’s gender is butcher their body to get them to closely resemble a member of the opposite gender. If you’re a man who thinks he’s a woman or vice versa, you have a psychosis. If you don’t like what I just said, you don’t like facts.
There are times when what you’re saying is so obvious, you kind of feel like you’re being condescending. It would be a matter so self-evident, that it’s tiring just to think about arguing about it at length to someone who just doesn’t want to accept it. It’s particularly the case when it comes to arguing with liberal fringe groups such as feminists and vegetarians. If they were to come out of their immature worldviews, they’d have so much to gain, such as no longer being wrong about something and experiencing the benefits of putting something that works into practice. But they don’t want to. They’re so determined to be so wrong.
Feminists in particular strive to be offensive. It’s the reason why many of them unashamedly accuse men in general of crimes for which individual men have no guilt. Their hypocrisy is so obvious, accusing men of being sexist when they themselves practice it. But they don’t care. Feminists are out to be grating and offensive. This new thing involving free bleeding is just another step down into the pit of insanity.
There’s no defending Planned Parenthood anymore.
I had just watched some of the videos recently posted on the YouTube channel The Center for Medical Progress, and I’m floored. The videos in question expose operations by Planned Parenthood to sell aborted fetal tissue.
If you’re wondering, selling fetal tissue is highly illegal. It’s a federal felony.
You can watch the videos if you want. But if you do, you’ll probably be shocked and disgusted. These videos show a side to humanity that might change the way you look at people. The following embedded video is the first uploaded to that channel, so it’s works well as a place to start:
In the past, the issue of abortion has been a topic that’s been very politicized, to the point that if a person stated their stance on the issue, then you could figure out their political affiliation pretty quick. Planned Parenthood became the most famous offerer of abortions in the United States, so they became like a face for a controversial topic.
However you stand when it comes to abortion, you really should not be defending Planned Parenthood when it comes to this. This is the kind of thing you should want to distance yourself from, and fast. What Planned Parenthood has done is not just illegal, it’s morally repugnant and offensive to basic human decency. The president would have to try pretty hard for his next scandal to look worse than this.
These videos, more of which are pending, are the result of a three-year-long investigation. What this by itself indicates is that Planned Parenthood’s trafficking in dead baby parts has been going on for a long time. Hearing their employees and leadership speak of this in these videos as though they weren’t a big thing is pretty chilling. What’s obviously evil to the rest of us can be just another day in the office to someone who has long since reasoned away what they’ve been doing.
Planned Parenthood has since gone on damage control, saying that the videos in question have been heavily edited. Which might not sound like a defense against the accusation or a refutation of the evidence clearly shown in the videos, because it’s neither. It’s quite a lame defense for such a serious crime. It’s like if hundreds of photographs of the concentration camp at Auschwitz were being circulated in newspapers during WWII, and Goebbels answered this by saying that some of the pictures were taken at a Dutch angle. Also, “FULL FOOTAGE” videos of the investigation were, in fact, posted to YouTube on the very same channel, making the “heavily edited” defense entirely useless.
As hard as it may be to believe, the full footage videos may actually be more incriminating than the shorter ones that get to the point. For example, in this video, at about 4:27:50, a conversation starts between the investigator and a Planned Parenthood employee regarding another client. The client wanted a variety of baby parts to help them to make humanized mice.
Yes, humanized mice.
Planned Parenthood is knowingly in cahoots with a bunch of mad scientists who want to make humanized mice. It sounds like a cross between a bad sci-fi movie and a right-wing worst case scenario lecture. But it happened.
And yes, it’s highly illegal.
There’s no defending Planned Parenthood anymore. If someone would try to defend them, they’re either an obvious troll who is trying to get a reaction, or so far to the left that they fall off the side of the plane, or something else that’s probably a little difficult to explain. Maybe some kind of ideologue that Democrats would be happy to have voting for them.
So, what’s it going to be, America? Still going to wait for matters to get worse? It can get worse. We’re arriving at the point where those who do evil can do so without fear because they know that most of us don’t have the nerve to do anything about it. A lot of what we’ve seen lately has been pretty horrible, but that’s just the stuff we know about. There’s bound to be far more.
Wanted: Honest Feminists
I recently attended a meeting about women’s services on campus, which was made interesting by the fact that there was only one female student in attendance. As the meeting went on, my BS detector went off the charts. The speaker, apparently, was what is called today a “feminist.”
What is a feminist? An advocate of women’s rights. Sounds like a noble cause, right? If that’s what it was about, then feminism today would be taken much more seriously.
But it’s not. And the reason for this is because many feminists today are actually a liability to the cause.
Above, I mentioned what’s called a “BS detector.” I think most of us knows what that means, but for those of us who don’t, to have a BS detector means to have an ability, either through intuition or conscious thought, to sense that there’s something fallacious.
For instance, you’ve probably heard the statistic that women make seven-tenths of what a man makes for doing the same job. It has an element of truthiness to it, considering that women have historically been treated unfairly. In many cases, the statistic is accepted by the hearer without further inquiry. It’s even been stated by president Barack Obama during a State of the Union address.
There’s a problem, though. The statistic is false.
If one were to look into the matter, the ratio would actually be closer to 9:10. The truer statistic does indicate that that there’s still a problem, but it’s nowhere near as dramatic as the 7:10 figure that we’ve been hearing.
When you hear that “women make seven-tenths for doing the same job as men”, your BS detector should go off. Perhaps you’ve picked up on some weasel words. Which job, specifically, do women do that nets them seven-tenths of a man’s pay? When was this study conducted? By whom? Did the study control for factors such as maternity leave and that women’s less career-oriented nature would lend them an inclination to settle for a lower salary?
By Tkjd2007 at Wikimedia.org, public domain
Perhaps your BS detector did go off, but you ignored it. As children, we are good at detecting things such as hypocrisy, but as we grow up, we train ourselves to ignore our BS detectors. While this is done with the intention of being more civil, it also enables certain people to walk all over us.
During the meeting, the speaker did mention the statistic. A brief glance around the room revealed that just about everyone present knew just what was going on. Did anyone call her on it? It would seem like no one wanted to. There was a guy next to me who raised his hand, but he was ignored.
Generally, men don’t want to fight back against the tide of radical feminism, because it would be so easy to paint such a person as the bad guy. Because of this, the speaker, even though she was surrounded by college-aged men, could say just about anything she wanted with impunity. The group mechanics were certainly awkward.
It seems to me that feminism still struggles to be taken seriously. Why? What’s so bad about the cause of making women of equal value to men?
Women have been of equal value to men all along. Throughout human history.
So, what’s the problem? They haven’t been treated that way. Would it be bad to advocate that they be treated fairly? Certainly not. So then, what major obstacles stand in the way of feminists being taken seriously?
The one I’m focusing on today is that feminism has honesty problems.
A lack of honesty is an issue, even if the cause is a good one. When a person tells a lie to advance a cause, that person takes the risk that that the hearer won’t look too much into it. While dishonest people have long had their way, the risk is even greater in the information age, when a person has instant access to research for verification.
One day, I came home from work and found that my roommates were talking to a door-to-door salesman, and they were sold to his alternative electrical energy supply company. The only thing preventing them from sealing the deal was that the electric bill was in my name, so they needed my approval. After talking with the salesman, I went inside to perform a web search to see what others were saying about his company. The company’s reputation was very bad, with even former employees coming out and pointing out that the company has nearly no organic growth. Armed with this new information, I went and shut the door on the salesman’s face. Problem solved, with the help of the internet.
Another point I want to focus on is that feminists generally just don’t like men, and that’s another obstacle to them being taken seriously. Feminists generally see the male-female relationship as being adversarial in nature, and because of this, it’s unusual to see them in a healthy relationship. Those who fetch coffee for those pushing a feminist agenda often end up developing the same grim outlook. As a result, relationships suffer where there otherwise wouldn’t have been a problem.
The key to a healthy relationship is compromise. Men and women get together understanding that there are differences beyond that women have breasts and a vulva, while men have something else. Men and women have brains that are 97% similar. That remaining 3% makes a big difference. For men and women to get along, they need to be accepting of one-another’s differences, otherwise, there could be problems.
Feminists have a tendency to teach women to accept no compromise. This results in some very difficult relationships. This is made even worse in an age when there are men who try to be more like women and women try to be more like men. Because so many people are trying to be something they’re not, relationships suffer.
The antidote for this is to understand one’s identity, and understand that characteristics such as one’s gender gives someone something to offer society, and knowing that personal success can be achieved by offering what you have to offer, instead of wishing that you could offer the exact same thing as someone with different attributes.
There are differences between men and women, and these enable both genders to offer things to a relationship that the other cannot. Even if the wife were the money-maker and the husband was a stay at home dad, the presence of primary sexual characteristics will still indicate mutually exclusive capacities. Because of this, there is no man that can do all the exact same things a woman can do, and there are no women that can do all the exact same things a man can do. If they could, gender distinctions wouldn’t exist.
Some would say that it’s not fair that women are generally physically weaker than men, and some would say that it’s not fair that the continuity of their genes requires the assistance of a woman. Just because something is different from what you would have personally preferred doesn’t mean that life is unfair. Besides, life is unfair. It has been for a long time.
The school I go to is a trade school, which means that the majors are highly technical in nature. Among them are architectural, HVAC, and electronic engineering majors. A vast majority of the students are male. Why would that be?
Perhaps it’s due to the popular perception that these are male jobs. Those who are particularly blunt seem to like to say that women haven’t built our buildings or paved our roads. I wouldn’t mind seeing women line up to shut them up. But it seems like that’s mostly not happening.
Perhaps it’s because there are so many men going to schools like this that make women feel uncomfortable with attending. Women that attend would be so far outnumbered that they’d feel out of place. There may also be a sexual element. Men like sex, and some get grabby about it. Those who act this way give the rest of my gender a bad rep.
But perhaps the biggest determining factor when women decide against trade schools is that they just don’t want to be architects or automotive repair women for a living. It’s not as though women don’t see such jobs as rewarding and fulfilling, because they do. However, these jobs tend to be physically demanding, and that’s where women usually being physically weaker comes in. It can make them less effective at the job that they do, which from a results-oriented standpoint, could be used to justify paying them less to do the same job.
If someone would have to try much harder to be just as effective, it would seem more practical to find a job that’s more suited to their abilities. Having said that, if someone really wants to do something, that extra bit of effort can result in a fulfilling career. And if women were to pave roads and build buildings, there would be a number of chauvinists with less to say.
If a feminist is a person who sees women as having equal value with men, then I’m a feminist. However, feminism seems instead to be some far-left movement that teaches women to resent men. That there are so many dishonest feminists also seriously hurts their movement, in ways that they don’t realize.
Because of this, there is a demand for honest feminists.
Magnetricity 